February 7, 2012

A person with direct knowledge of decision-making at Komen's headquarters in Dallas said the grant-making criteria were adopted with the deliberate intention of targeting Planned Parenthood....

According to the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of repercussions, a driving force behind the move was Handel, who was hired by Komen last year as vice president for public policy after losing a campaign for governor in Georgia in which she stressed her anti-abortion views and frequently denounced Planned Parenthood....

Handel, a Republican, ran for Georgia governor in 2010, winning an endorsement from former vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Handel then lost a primary runoff to former Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal, who won the general election.

Throughout the campaign, Deal accused Handel of being soft on abortion.

Deal repeatedly attacked Handel over a 2005 vote she took while serving on a metro Atlanta county commission to give more than $400,000 to Planned Parenthood....

Abortion politics. It's hard to position yourself in the middle, as it seems Handel has done, and she's managed to get slammed from one side and then the other and to lose 2 big jobs.

248 comments:

She doesn't want Komen to keep suffering for the original decision. Hence she's being painted as a crazy right wing person, endorsed by that woman! even, so she absorbs the brunt of it and leaves the cancer charity as undamaged as possible.

That or she broke the rule: Don't make your boss/company look stupid or draw negative attention (no matter how you do it).

the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization. Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology.

But of course the reality based community narrative becomes Komen hired a right wing nut who decided to attack Planned Parenthood. Een though her views on PP were publicly documented.

Who knows how the court of history will view this kind of thing. Will they ridicule the culture which got so worked up over abortion as we now ridicule the one that got so worked up over prohibition, or will they side on the pro-lifers as we do on the abolitionists today?

I don't think you can blame Handel for this. According to her, the decision was thoroughly vetted and presented to and approved by the Board of Directors. They screwed up their attempt to be in the middle by reneging on their decision. That made the initial decision appear to have been political from the beginning.

People just don't want to have a mature discussion about the premeditated, premature termination of human life (i.e. abortion). They do not want to review when dignity should be assigned to human life, instead succumbing to their dreams of instant gratification. They have become complacent and comfortable with deferring judgment to "experts" who are willingly rationalizing their dreams.

The AP's focus is intended to redirect focus away from Planned Parenthood to the Susan G. Komen foundation. The motivation is to remove attention from the regressive principle promoted by Planned Parenthood.

Anyway, we, as a society, have deemed it fit to assign dignity to all people, irrespective of their incidental features or behaviors. Unfortunately, we are still not prepared to establish when it should be assigned without arbitrary justification. Our dreams of physical, material, and ego instant gratification continue to take priority.

The best revenge would be in November. A republican president and congress ought to be easily persuaded to eliminate all federal funding for abortion and abortion providers along with the elimination of the charitable and tax exempt status of abortion providers.

As usual when abortion comes up, nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room. Namely that most abortions are done by blacks and browns. Is that a good thing for society, apparently Freakonomics say it is.

Well, not a mystery, but a payoff, sharing the loot, just like Barry did with his donors via federal loan guarantees.

It's barely possible for the left to get any more corrupt, unless they start requiring young women to be subject to droit du seigneur, a la that great liberal hero JFK. he shared that loot as well, we now know.

I agree with young Hegelian. This is not good for PP in the long run (and thank goodness for that!). Contra Matthew, it's far more difficult to generate public controversy over an entity's decision not to START funding something than it is to generate controversy over stopping something it's already begun.

In the former, there can be a multitude of plausible reasons given... don't meet our criteria, we don't have the funds right now, we're pursuing other options at the moment, etc. But once you START funding them to begin with, then most of those excuses dry up.

On the other hand, PP has probably guaranteed that nobody else will stop funding them for a while, so they can continue raking in cash from those folks for a good long time.

Komen is now completely screwed, though. They won't be trusted again by the left. No big Hollywood stars promoting "let's drape everything in pink" week any more. Which is good, because the sight of NFL players running around in pink socks or whatever ridiculous gimmick that was this year made me want to puke, and completely turned me against the organization to begin with. The NFL didn't participate in that because they really cared about promoting breast cancer awareness, they did it because Komen was politically powerful, and this was what all the "right" people were doing. Now, the sheen is off that rose, and hopefully we won't be forced to put up with that crap any more.

If Komen DOES manage to pull through, it will have to be a subservient toady to the left's agenda, never daring to leave the reservation ever again, which will do its own damage.

Sadly, at the end of all this, what suffers most is the work to prevent and treat breast cancer. Screw the damned politically correct liberals who turned this into such a massive political issue. In a fight between an organization that fights cancer and an organization which kills babies, they chose to defend the baby killing bunch.

No it hasn't or at least I haven't noticed any. The first year I arranged to have the pledge card sent to my home and I'd write a check (which I had no intention of doing). Then I thought about it and decided I wasn't going to lie; I just tell them that I give through my church.

I'm not Catholic but my church does very good work (second to Catholics in healthcare and education) and almost all the money donated goes directly to the intended recipients.

PP and Komen, not so much. Nancy Brinker could afford to give her own money. She's a huge Republican bundler and her family owns a major NY department store. The whole Komen enterprise is an self aggrandizing scheme.

Pogo, I happen to agree that that 600k could be better put to use elsewhere, but I think it is fair to say that some marginal breast cancer related things were happening at PP, as opposed to nothing at all.

For SGK to completely separate itself from PP required great planning and diplomatic skills. Their bases of support overlap quite a bit, and they needed to part as "friends" in a larger cause. If that was Handel's job she did it with extreme short-sightedness. SGK looked very much like they were aligning themselves with the kill PP crowd. If that's the case they shot themselves. PP is a giant among lots of women. Me included.

2) According to the CDC, "Mammograms are the best way to find breast cancer early". Hence, redirecting these grants to providers which actually provide mammograms would have more effectively and more efficiently served the needs of women. But, as always, the abortion activists were FAR more interested in making sure their bloated sacred cow (Planned Parenthood) remained VERY well fed.

PP makes its money by cordoning off something called "women's health" from the more general "health" and so they need to keep all groups in their little corral.

Heaven forbid PP had to try to compete for taxpayer dollars and donations by just calling itself a public health clinic. If they let Komen wander away, how can they continue to pretend all women are one big special interest group unified by a big pink ribbon?

But Christian conservatives have a fetish to make all babies be born regardless of how it affects society.

Absolutely Alex, but where are you going to draw the line? Right now it's little black and brown babies(mostly black). What's next? People born with downs syndrome, MS, red hair, jews?You wanna be the one to make the call?I got a better idea. Why not use that energy to promote better birth control BEFORE the little egg starts to subdivide.

As usual when abortion comes up, nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room. Namely that most abortions are done by blacks and browns. Is that a good thing for society, apparently Freakonomics say it is.

If they let Komen wander away, how can they continue to pretend all women are one big special interest group unified by a big pink ribbon?

In my experience, Planned Parenthood is to "women's health" what Apple is to "computing". The followers of PP, as in the case of Apple followers, do not think something has evolved in their arena until the mothership says so. Ergo, all advancements in "women's health" that are not baptized by PP are not actual advancements in the eyes of Planned Parenthood supporters. Much like Apple supporters see other competitors achievements as simply a sideshow to actual achievements, only publicized by Apple.

Komen is now learning that lesson. However, at what cost? This decision will not really impact PP. They will keep on trucking along to protect their brand. It's highly effective and I would argue, unmatched by any other entity in the world.

The real problem for Komen is their supporters with reservations about the grants to Planned Parenthood to perform services that PP does not even perform is now in doubt. Will those donors continue to donate? Will they buy all the pink merchandise? Or, will they simply turn to an organization that actually is effective at finding a cure for breast cancer and funds organizations that actually meet a woman's needs when it comes to breast cancer prevention, detection, and treatment.

Susan G Komen is a somewhat shoddy organization anyway. I would never have donated to them before this incident and certainly will not now.

Look at what percentage of their funding actually goes to helping women as opposed to admin and "Raising awareness"

I've sometimes thought of starting an organization to raise funds from the gullible for sunglasses for South American lepers (not original with me). One can do very well indeed with a non-profit organization. Not only very well, but may, possibly, sometimes, do some good as well.

Someone said that they make all their donations via the Catholic Church. Good for you. I agree though I make mine mostly via the Seventh Day Adventist and Salvation Army churches following the same reasoning.

Rather, what is hard to see is how anyone, after this, could in all good conscience give money or otherwise associate with such an organization that is only going to then give that money to the nation's largest committer of abortion.

The "Progressives" have turned the maternal instinct so completely upside down that very many now believe their most sacred "right" is the "right" to murder their own children for no greater reason than personal convenience. They will DESTROY anybody and anything that is even alleged to threaten that "right".

I used to live in South Florida, if you planted a cypress tree, you would never be able to cut it down as it was protected. Sure, you could deal with the govt and try to get an exemption, if you wanted to expand your house or something, but the easy decision is to plant something else.

These are the kinds of perverse incentives that the left simply cannot understand. As noted above, contributing to planned parenthood is another.

Handel was overtly religious but she was a north Metro Atlanta politician, where social conservative issues are seldom raised in politics. She was even a Log Cabin Republican member.

The runoff typically went to the second place finisher. Deal had 23% and Handel had 33% in the first election. But the facts remained that Deal was a man from rural Georgia and Handel was a woman, Yankee import, from northern Metro Atlanta.

Georgia is composed of Atlanta and the rest of the State that is jealous of Atlanta's influence.

That was why she lost the statewide race. Issues like her failure to hate the gays and a compromise vote funding Planned Parenthood were excuses. She lost in a GOP year because the GOP voters outside Atlanta were narrow minded.

Seeing Red: "Is it really true there's a study or more out there suggesting a link to increased breast cancer and abortions?"

Do a Google search for Dr. Louise Brinton and read about her position. She is a researcher for the National Cancer Institute who originally led the charge to disprove the connection between abortion, birth control pills, and breast cancer. In 2010, she reversed her position and said that her data indicates that there is a link. Unfortunately, very few major news media outlets reported her reversal.

Also, one other aspect of the debate that is not often addressed is the fact that most birth control pills actually act as abortifacients, rather than preventing pregnancy.

The observation has been made that this is analogous to the Wisconsin union thuggery. The secret word is "money." Once people weren't forced to fund the Democrats via union dues, they didn't.

The same with PP. If SGK and its money can be allowed to walk away, how many others might have the same blasphemous idea? Destroy the village (SKG's brand) in order to save it.

If any GOP contender had stones, they'd be crowing loud and long about the naked eagerness of the left to jettison any pretense of 'caring' or 'curing' in order to preserve the holy Democrat sacrament of murder.

shiloh, please stop obsessing over every little word I type. It's unbecoming. If you resist this request and continue to do so, at least try to be funny. Clever, even. So far, you've proven woefully inept at either.

Scott, I said that I found the content of Garage's posts to be like an endless loop of "Yakety Sax" (AKA the Benny Hill Show theme). If you think of Shiloh's posts as the equivalent of a little boy farting in the bathtub and giggling at the bubbles, you'd probably find them at least funny, if not clever.

Since 1973, there have been somewhere between 50 and 65 million legal abortions performed in the United States. The rate of abortion is about 4 times as great among African Americans as among whites, and in more recent years about 35% of legal abortions have been performed on blacks, who number about 12% of the population. Somewhere between 13 and 20 million black children have been aborted since 1973. This has resulted in a reduction of black population estimated at 25% less than would be present if the abortions had not occurred.

The policies that have created this result have been promoted largely by white liberals, especially those from upper economic classes, with high level educations and considerable influence in government and in control of well funded powerful organizations like Planned Parenthood. The movement has gone well beyond just keeping abortion legal. They have effectively suppressed opposition to abortion, and have funded massive government and private encouragement and performance of abortions.

The shutdown and demonization of anyone,black or white, who simply points out the racial effect of this program is deafening. Anyone who dares call the program racist will be targeted for destruction. Such notions simply can not be allowed to exist.

History will have its reckoning though. I doubt that this very effective suppression of black population growth will be looked at kindly by future generations. It does not take much imagination to see that this policy, and those who promoted it, could be seen as one of the most shameful episodes in American history.

I am not sure if they would have been hurt more if they had kept the ban on giving to PP, or not. But, in the end, they are going to suffer from this.

You get asked constantly at certain parts of the year to contribute - for example at the cash register of many stores. And, my usual response is to ask if they have donated for prostate cancer, and if they have, then donate for "the cure".

But, now, I have a second excuse for not contributing - I will ask if they know that some of the money goes to support Planned Parenthood, that does no breast exams, but is the nation's largest abortion provider. And, BTW, part of the reason why abortion is legal in the first place in this country (they were apparently involved in the early privacy litigation that led up to Roe v. Wade, just for that result).

And, I think that this connection between Komen and PP will ultimately do more harm than good, in terms of fund raising. A lot of people are likely to start thinking that wearing a pink bow is a pro-abortion statement.

Maybe unfair, but Komen did not handle this at all well. Much better if they had been able to sever their ties with PP quietly. In the scheme of things, it wasn't that much money, and I am sure that the Obama Administration could have found some way to make it up quietly. Maybe some sort of HHS slush fund aimed at education or promoting ObamaCare.

The policies that have created this result have been promoted largely by white liberals, especially those from upper economic classes, with high level educations and considerable influence in government and in control of well funded powerful organizations like Planned Parenthood.

"It's barely possible for the left to get any more corrupt, unless they start requiring young women to be subject to droit du seigneur, a la that great liberal hero JFK. he shared that loot as well, we now know."

I think that ship has sailed. If you're a Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy type who can be counted on to keep abortion legal, you are given a free pass to behave in the most depraved and selfish manner towards women, with hardly a peep from the Left.

Tradguy - why do you take such an extreme position? This is not a battle between the Jesus-freaks and the green-freaks. All you guys represent maybe 10% of the population. The other 90% of us are just trying to muddle through the day somehow.

1) As a biologist, I call tell you with absolute certainty that life begins at conception. Any attempt to concoct any other definition is a purely political, utterly unscientific, attempt to rationalize homicide. Go invent some other statistics. Lies are all your murderous ideology has got.

2) You dare to describe those who defend the defenseless as "extreme" when you have effectively admitted that you consider mass murder to be an acceptable tool for social engineering? Amazing!

"Abortion is not homicide. 90% of the population does not agree with you."

So the difference between 'murder' and 'inanimate clump of infesting cells' is subject to percentage points now? I'll have to remember that the next time I'm told people really support gay marriage, even when the numbers say otherwise.

There is an uneasy feeling among women that influential segments of the GOP are opposed to contraception. This will be exploited in all the 2012 races. SGK may not be directly about this, but it adds to the atmosphere. How badly does the GOP want to lose? Oh, yeah and then blame it on nominating a moderate like MR (who is moving right at break neck speed).

Alex: Do you think your mother would have had a happier, fuller, more expressive life if you had not been on the scene? I personally do not know of any abortion fans who think about things like that and wonder if you do.

Alex: "Isn't Santorum on record being opposed to the morning-after pill?"

That doesn't exactly support your argument, Alex. The morning after pill acts to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, ending a pregnancy. Therefore, it is an abortificient, not a contraceptive (at least not primarily).

Alex said...SBVOR - abortion is not homicide. 90% of the population does not agree with you.

At one time a majority of citizens didn't think there was anything wrong with slavery either.

When that egg attaches itself to the uterine wall and begins to divide, unless there is a spontaneous abortion, it ain't a giraffe comin' out in nine months.Said egg which is dividing already having all the required DNA to be a complete, unique human being.Just sayin.

The racism card has been SO overplayed by the indoctrinated, the illiterate and the ill-informed (aka "Progressives") that nobody takes it seriously anymore.

I grew up in the 1950s. I saw REAL racism. There's a little bit left today. But, it's damn hard to find. The REAL racism today is institutionalized in programs such as "Affirmative Action" (aka Affirmative Racism).

PP is engaged in something which could accurately be described as genocide. The fact that there is no greater sacred cow among the Dims tells me everything I need to know about who the real racists are in this country (and always have been).

I'm not sure if this just makes Shiloh a very successful troll, but he (I use the masculine pronoun very loosely) has actually influenced me.

I used to give liberals the benefit of the doubt, that maybe they were decent people who were just really stupid. I now have decided that people (again, a term that I use very loosely) like Shiloh are complete wastes of oxgygen and should probably be forcibly sterilized.

Thanks for motivating me to donate some money to Walker, even though I don't live in Wisconsin. I now take a personal interest in the recall race just on the off hope that Walker's victory will bring some amount of pain to pathetic internet trolls sad little lives.

As usual when abortion comes up, nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room. Namely that most abortions are done by blacks and browns. Is that a good thing for society, apparently Freakonomics say it is.

This is simply false. Blacks and Browns have abortions at a higher rate than whites, but whites have more abortions total (about 55%) according to the U.S. Census.

If you seriously want to conflate a distortion of the intentions behind some string of words to the point where it is the moral equivalent of the obvious genocide perpetrated by PP, then I don't have much hope of getting through to you (or any other fully indoctrinated so-called "Progressives").

Thanks for motivating me to donate some money to Walker, even though I don't live in Wisconsin. I now take a personal interest in the recall race just on the off hope that Walker's victory will bring some amount of pain to pathetic internet trolls sad little lives.

Walker hired some pretty high flying criminal defense lawyers, so he'll need all the money he can get. To make a difference you'll have to give til it hurts!

The relationship between abortion and welfare is analogous to the relationship between death panels and health care.

Once the government assumes responsibility for entrapping minorities in dependence and poverty through their welfare programs, they then find a need to limit the growth of their welfare dependent clients -- mass murder is the answer.

Similarly, once the government assumes responsibility for health care, they then find a need to limit (otherwise entirely unsustainable) health care expenses. Again, mass murder (through neglect) is the answer.

Hence the platitude:Nothing is ever so expensive as that which is "free".

I don’t donate to the Susan G Komen Foundation for the same reasons that I never donate to the United Way:

1) Neither organization actually provides services (e.g. cancer research) but instead funnels part of the money that they collect to groups that do. If I give directly to the groups that actually perform the services that I find worthwhile, I can get the maximum bang for my buck (100 percent of my donation instead of 16 percent) and not have to worry about whether I’m helping them to also support groups, programs or services that I find wasteful or objectionable.

2) Any group who includes as part of its mission “raising awareness” of something that the general public is already aware of is most likely a group that is trying to “raise awareness” of its existence and that you can generate good publicity for your company if you “encourage” your employees or customers to donate.

I would strongly encourage people who want to donate money to fight breast cancer or any other disease to boycott aggregator groups like the Susan G Komen Foundation and the United Way and instead send the money you would otherwise donate directly to a hospital or research facility or other group that actually does the worthwhile work that you want to support.

By inference, you absolutely did all that AND MORE. You have given your tacit approval to the obvious genocide perpetrated by PP. But then you get your panties in a wad over the phrase "Little Black Jesus" (an obvious reference to morons who have openly proclaimed "Obama is my Jesus".

Through your actions, you have not merely drawn a moral equivalence; you have placed prohibited speech as the far HIGHER priority (making you a typically indoctrinated, illiterate and ill-informed "Progressive").

This continued obsession with prohibited speech combined with the continued tacit approval of the obvious genocide perpetrated by PP only serves to further reinforce the absolute accuracy of my previous assertion.

AlphaLiberal: Don't bother to read the Murray book. It will disappoint in that it is not about comparing races. It is about the difference between the upper crust and the shrinking middle class and does not take into account African Americans or Latinos. Really, this is a good place to not beclown yourself when you can avoid it easily by reading the book.

A survey released by the Public Religion Research Institute on Tuesday found that 58 percent of Catholics think businesses should be required to provide health plans with free birth control, compared with 55 percent of all Americans who agreed with the requirement. At 38 percent, white evangelical protestants were the least likely to agree free contraception should be provided by employers.

So Obama's new regulations that compel religious organisations to include morning-after pills and other contraceptives in employee health insurance coverage. ...

is probably much ado about nothing ie if a Catholic wasn't going to vote for Obama because of the new regs, they probably weren't going to vote for him anyways, regardless.

And doesn't everyone enjoy the "new wave" of Catholics who don't follow all of their "leaders" laws as the gospel truth. (50+) years of those same leaders covering up for child molesters notwithstanding. I digress.

Indeed, as many Catholics had no problem w/Obama being pro-choice in 2008. Gasp!

Any “survey” done by an advocacy group that doesn’t at a minimum include a copy of the questions, methodology and breakdown of the sample should be presumed to be a push poll unless and until proven otherwise.

My question is this: If one is not "mandated" to buy or take contraceptives, what possible difference does an insurance company being required to pay for them matter...to anybody? The reasoning relates to the people who can't afford paying, being able to have contraception...to avoid the possibility of having an unwanted pregnancy...and a possible abortion.

Isn't that what 90% of the people here scream about every day?

Abortions??

And: I can't imagine not being able to tell your insurance company (if so willing or so religiously inclined) that you would not like for them to pay...that you'll pay yourself.

Once again, this fool illustrates just how uneducated and uninformed he really is.

Via Lisa Levenstein is an associate professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro

The nation's food stamp program is an essential part of the American safety net. Why? Because people can't be productive — in school, at work or looking for work — if they are hungry and fearful about not having enough food to feed their families.

The program serves 46 million people, almost as many people as Medicare. And that's despite the fact that more than one-third of those eligible for the benefit are not receiving it. If all those who qualified for food stamps enrolled in the program, it would include 20% to 25% of Americans.

Not surprisingly, given the large numbers who participate, food stamp recipients are a diverse bunch, including the elderly, the disabled, one-parent families, two-parent families, low-wage workers, students, soldiers and the unemployed.

*Oh...and only 22% of food stamp recipients are black.

The architects of the program emphasized that it bolstered household consumption and shored up the retail economy.

Grocers preferred to have people standing in lines in their stores than standing in lines to take surplus food. Once the program was started, the grocery industry advertised the stamps to homemakers as smart, money-saving shopping tools.

In 2009, they pumped $50 billion into the economy. And, according to a 2008 USDA publication, the benefits extend beyond stores:

"Every $5 in new food stamp benefits generates a total of $9.20 in community spending," and each "$1 billion of retail food demand by food stamp recipients generates 3,300 farm jobs."

Conservatives are trying to smear Barack Obama by dubbing him the "food stamp president."

He should not run from the label but embrace it, positioning himself as a defender of American retailers and a protector of the security and integrity of all U.S. households.

Jay - Once again, after telling you in a previous session that I would not engage you because you apprently do not know how to read or understand other people's opinions (statistics/facts)...I'm afraid we're back to it again.

Please just bypass my comments and forget about any form of debate or discussion.

Love said...Jay - Once again, after telling you in a previous session that I would not engage you because you apprently do not know how to read or understand other people's opinions (statistics/facts).

Um, I clearly read what you posted.

They are not "facts" as easily demonstrated by what I said.

You can't apply any critical thinking to my response or your "facts" so now you're pretending that I'm "disregarding" something, when in fact I responded directly to it.

edutcher attacking the messenger instead of the message, er deflecting, as per usual.

No deflect. At no point do they say how many Catholics, etc., were interviewed and whether an organization has an axe to grind should be taken into account before buying any poll results.

(I don't trust the Fox News poll, either...)

A random sample of 1000 people is just that. If there's no breakdown of how many of each group were questioned, we have no indication that a representative number of Catholics was included. It just says it was "weighted" according to age, sex, geography, etc., but at no point does it say an effort was made to be indicative of a representative proportion of each religion.

They could interview 10 Catholics and say with a straight face 60% of Catholics felt that way.

SBVOR - I just visted you blog site and found that you posted garbage like this (did you use Jay as your source?):

"I challenge ANY PP advocate to find any PP location ANYWHERE in the ENTIRE country which provides mammograms. Here’s a clue -- THERE ARE NONE!"

Over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers with Komen program funding have provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams out of the more than four million clinical breast exams performed nationwide at Planned Parenthood health centers, as well as more than 6,400 mammogram referrals out of 70,000 mammogram referrals.

AND:

Planned Parenthood of Central Texas is proud to provide comprehensive breast cancer screening for our patients, including mammography when needed. Through grants from the Central Texas affiliate of the Susan G. Komen Foundation and our participation in the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening (BCCS) program (through the Texas Department of State Health Services), PPCT provides referrals and pays for mammograms and diagnostic follow up treatment for our patients at area radiology and surgical clinics.

Through these grants, in 2010 PPCT patients received 609 screening mammograms and 125 diagnostic mammograms; breast cancer was detected in 20 women. For most of these patients, Planned Parenthood is their only healthcare provider.

Through our participation in the BCCS program, patients who are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer can be enrolled in the Medicaid for Breast and Cervical Cancer (MBCC) program, which ensures that they receive the necessary treatment to fight cancer.

In 2009 we provided 487 mammograms and 162 diagnostic follow-up procedures for our patients. Since this program began in 2001, we have provided 2,683 mammograms to low-income women. [Waco Planned Parenthood, Spring/Summer 2010]

In 2009 we provided 487 mammograms and 162 diagnostic follow-up procedures for our patients. Since this program began in 2001, we have provided 2,683 mammograms to low-income women. [Waco Planned Parenthood, Spring/Summer 2010]"

(Since this program began in 2001, we have provided 2,683 mammograms to low-income women)